Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Thread I've been meaning to start for a loooooong time (Nov 2016). Recent happenings in PA brought it back to the fore-front.

First, to the thread title. The GOP has been attempting to rig democracy as hard as possible. First, they want to make it hard to vote (Limiting early voting, Voter ID; numerous states). Next, they want to get rid of eligible voters for not voting (Voter Roll Purges; Ohio). Then they take gerrymandering, and add such scientific precision as to permanently entrench their majority (Wisconsin).

Pennsylvania’s top court on Monday threw out the state’s congressional map, ruling that Republican legislators unlawfully sought partisan advantage, and gave them three weeks to rework it in a decision that could boost Democratic chances of retaking the U.S. House of Representatives.

In a 5-2 decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled the electoral map violated the state’s Constitution by manipulating the district boundaries to marginalize Democratic voters, a practice called partisan gerrymandering
.…
Experts have held up Pennsylvania as one of the most extreme examples of gerrymandering, pointing to bizarrely shaped districts that have earned nicknames like “Goofy kicking Donald Duck.” The Republican-controlled legislature created the current map in 2011, after the 2010 U.S. census.

But the legal challenge, filed by the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, relied on the state Constitution, not the U.S. Constitution, and lawyers for the plaintiffs said the U.S. Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the case.

“It’s well established that the United States Supreme Court does not review decisions of state force that exclusively construe state law,” attorney Stanton Jones said.

Four days after its initial order, on January 26, the court issued a subsequent order requiring the legislature to turn over certain data — including geolocation files “that contain the current boundaries of all Pennsylvania municipalities and precincts” and various reports analyzing how well the legislature’s proposed new maps comply with the court’s January 22 order.

In a letter from his legal counsel, Scarnati explicitly refuses to comply with the second order. Though the letter claims that “the General Assembly is currently advancing bills aimed at creating an alternative map,” the letter also states that “Senator Scarnati will not be turning over any data identified in the Court’s Orders.”

Scarnati’s stated reason for this defiance is his belief that the court’s January 22 order “violates the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause.” Last week, Scarnati sought a stay of the January 22 order from the Supreme Court of the United States, claiming that only the state legislature and not the state courts are constitutionally allowed to weigh in on questions of gerrymandering.

Top Pennsylvania Republican lawmakers are asking the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to vacate its order overturning the state’s congressional district map as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander, saying at least one justice in the case was biased.

David Wecht, who was elected as a Democrat to the state high court in 2015, made several disparaging comments about the congressional map and the practice of gerrymandering while campaigning for the state Supreme Court seat. Those comments should have disqualified him from participating in the redistricting case, State Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati and House Speaker Mike Turzai said in a filing Friday.

Justice Samuel Alito, the member of the court who hears emergency requests from states, denied the efforts — one from state GOP lawmakers and another from Republican voters in the state — for a stay of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s January ruling that the state’s congressional map had been drawn in a way that unfairly favored Republicans.

So how to ratchet things up further?
If you don't like the outcome, impeach the justices!

Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?

Status:
Offline

Feb 8, 2018, 09:37 AM

David Wecht, who was elected as a Democrat to the state high court in 2015, made several disparaging comments about the congressional map and the practice of gerrymandering while campaigning for the state Supreme Court seat. Those comments should have disqualified him from participating in the redistricting case, State Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati and House Speaker Mike Turzai said in a filing Friday.

I trust that the Republicans would be fine disqualifying any supreme court justices that have previously expressed a disdain for abortion from weighing in on abortion case? After all, if they've previously discussed their opposition to it, they're biased and shouldn't be eligible to weigh in.

Republicans said they will go to federal court this week to try to block new court-ordered boundaries of Pennsylvania's congressional districts from remaining in effect for 2018's elections.

Top Senate Republican lawyer Drew Crompton said Monday a separation of powers case will form the essence of the GOP's argument.

"Implementation of this map would create a constitutional crisis where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is usurping the authority of the legislative and executive branches," said Republican House Speaker Mike Turzai.

Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey (R) called for a "conversation" about impeaching state Supreme Court justices over their new congressional map, which both parties say will benefit Democrats.

At a press conference, Toomey said it was "inevitable" that state lawmakers would consider impeachment over the redrawing of the state's new congressional maps, which he called a "power grab" by state Democrats.

"Look, I think it's inevitable that that conversation's going to take place," Toomey said. "I think state House members and state senators are going to be speaking amongst themselves and their constituents, and the fundamental question is does this blatant, unconstitutional, partisan power grab that undermines our electoral process, does that rise to the level of impeachment?"

Is he talking about the gerrymandering? Some 1984 shit right there.

I love how a supreme court ruling is a 'power grab' by state democrats. This shitstain barely getting reelected was one of the other sore spots of 2016.

The National Democratic Redistricting Committee alleged in the lawsuit filed in Dane County Circuit Court that Walker was violating the law and denying Wisconsin voters representation by leaving the elected offices unfilled until 2019.

The seats, one in the state Assembly and the other in the state Senate, became vacant in December when two Republican lawmakers resigned to accept jobs in Walker’s administration.

Democrats quickly called for special elections, hoping to pick up seats, but Walker demurred.

“This D.C.-based special interest group wants to force Wisconsin taxpayers to waste money,” Hasenberg told the newspaper. “The Legislature will be adjourned for 2018 before these seats could be filled in special elections, and staff in these offices are working for constituents until new leaders are elected.”

Right after their last appeals failed. GOP owns the seats in both houses to pass this without Democratic votes. Time to see if this is the actions of a desperate minority of the party or the rot has spread to the entire body.

Given the "constitutional" way the party is spinning the impeachment move (ensuring separation of powers, etc.), giving thin-yet-probable cover for fence-sitters, I'm betting they'll be able to get enough votes to pull it off. Sadly.

The GOP as a whole has been at war against the judiciary (well, the judiciary that rules against them) for years. You can believe that the rest of the republican-held states (as well as members of congress) are watching this move very closely. Though, I'm not sure how many states allow the legislature to remove supreme court justices.

I don't think "the right to fix elections" resonates with the public. And gerrymandering has limits - it only works if there are still locations with majority (R) voters. If public support falls enough, Gerry's house collapses.

For this to go through:

1. Most PA House reps would have to vote for it on the record.
2. Most PA Senators would have to falsely convict on the record.
3. The US Supreme Court would have to give it a pass, when the convictions are appealed.
4. The US Congress would have to give it a pass also, or do some impeaching on the SCOTUS.
5. As (R)s in Congress are expected to lose in the election late this year, they'd have to rush #4 through this year, *and* be willing to lose their seats for it.
6. The voters in PA would need to give injustice a pass too.
7. The voters in the rest of the US would have to not punish their (R) congressmen for ignoring or supporting injustice in PA.

It would require across-the-board evil for this to happen, and remain. If it does, we're no longer a free country. Liberty and justice only for the few.

I would expect a dramatic increase in violence afterwards, and an organized resistance movement to develop. That's what happens when entire classes of people are stripped of their political rights. And in this case, it's the majority being stripped by a slightly smaller minority. (D)s did outvote (R)s in 2016 after all.

All of which is why PA republicans are working hard to message this as them doing their constitutional duty in the face of (they claim) “illegal” judicial over-reach, in order to give their legislators plausible cover. It’s about messaging, that’s all. And, I think there’s a good chance there are just enough blindly doctrinaire legislators to make it happen. Party über alles.

I hope I’m wrong, of course. I hope the negative public response is tsunami-like. But, I’ve become pretty cynical about these things anymore.

Dane County Circuit Judge Josann Reynolds — whom Walker appointed to the bench in 2014 — determined Walker had a duty under state law to hold special elections so voters could have representation in the Legislature. She said failing to hold special elections infringed on the voting rights of people who lived in the two districts.

"To state the obvious, if the plaintiffs have a right to vote for their representatives, they must have an election to do so," said Reynolds.

The case hinged on a state law that says Walker must promptly call a special election to fill any legislative seat that becomes vacant "before the second Tuesday in May in the year in which a regular election is held."

Walker aides contended Walker didn't need to hold special elections because the vacancies occurred not in 2018 — the election year — but in 2017.

The judge called that interpretation absurd because a seat that becomes vacant in 2017 remains empty longer than one that begins in 2018.

The judge took a shot at Walker for contending he didn't have to hold the election when the statutes are clear and he so often talks about the need for judges and others to follow the plain meaning of laws.

"I cannot reconcile the incongruity between Governor Walker's administration's very vocal and consistent policy advocating for strict constructionism and the position taken by the attorney general in this case involving the most basic constitutional guarantee," Reynolds said.

They're considering appealing. They don't want to hold an election that much.

One day after a judge dealt Republicans a setback by ordering special elections, Gov. Scott Walker and his fellow GOP leaders in the Legislature said they will pass legislation to block those elections.

Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau) and Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) said they would take up legislation to change special election rules after a Dane County judge ruled that Walker must call special elections to fill two legislative seats that have been vacant almost three months. Walker quickly committed to signing the bill, which has not yet been released.

Ignore the law, get sued, get ruled against, vote to change the law, all so you don't have to hold an election for open seats. This. Is. Crazy.

In a news conference Friday, Fitzgerald could offer no specifics on what legislative changes he would make to halt the elections and acknowledged he wasn't yet sure if such a bill would be constitutional. He and Vos said they were worried that the tight timeline of a special election might lead to the disenfranchisement of the federally protected voting rights of troops stationed overseas and other voters abroad.

On Thursday, Vos, the Assembly speaker, dismissed Reynolds as an "activist Dane County judge," saying he thought the description fit even if she was appointed by Walker.

That brought a sharp rebuke from Pines and from William Hanrahan, the chief judge of the state court system's District 5, which includes Dane County. Hanrahan praised Reynolds' work as a judge and said Vos could criticize her decision but shouldn't attack her character.

"You took the low road. With a broad brush, you have not only needlessly besmirched my reputation and that of my colleagues, you have gratuitously denigrated the good citizens of Dane County," Hanrahan wrote in a letter to Vos.

Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom Saylor, a Republican, released a statement on Thursday about the resolutions. He said, "As Chief Justice of Pennsylvania, I am very concerned by the reported filing of impeachment resolutions against justices of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania related to the Court's decision about congressional redistricting.

"Threats of impeachment directed against justices because of their decision in a particular case are an attack upon an independent judiciary, which is an essential component of our constitutional plan of government."

[email protected] says he wants Chief Justice Patience Roggensack to discipline Dane County Circuit Judge Josann Reynolds for "politicizing" her ruling in special elections case, says her comments in the writ were inexcusable.

...here he call for the judge to be punished because he disagrees with her ruling.

But State Rep. Dave Reed, the Republican majority leader from Indiana County, stepped in and doused all that, announcing that while he opposed the court’s approach on drawing a new map for the districts, “disagreement over the outcome of any particular case should not be grounds for impeachment.”

Two other Republican governors, Rick Snyder of Michigan and Rick Scott of Florida, are stalling on special elections. Mr Snyder has decided to wait until November to replace John Conyers, a Democratic congressman who resigned in December because of allegations of sexual harassment, as well as Bert Johnson, a Democratic state senator who resigned after pleading guilty to charges of corruption. Mr Scott, who like Mr Snyder is term-limited, is refusing to hold special elections for two seats in Florida’s legislature.

Senate Bill 22 and House Bill 722, both of which would establish a nonpartisan citizens commission to draw up fair congressional and legislative maps. HB 722 has gained tremendous bipartisan support in the House, with well over half the House members signing on.

The problem in Pennsylvania is that the House and Senate bills languished in committee, ostensibly because of the pending court decisions, and there's not much time left to act so the state constitution can be changed in time for the next redistricting in 2021. That constitutional change would require the bill to pass in two consecutive legislative sessions and then go to statewide referendum. If a bill isn't passed this year, we'll be stuck with this system until 2030.

With the state Supreme Court battle over, the Senate finally agreed to allow SB 22, cosponsored by Lisa Boscola , D-Northampton, and Mario Scavello , R-Monroe, to be debated. The Senate State Government Committee, led by Sen. Mike Folmer , R-Lebanon, recently heard testimony from a variety of experts, advocates and skeptics regarding SB 22 and other redistricting bills in the Senate.

This should have happened long ago, but at least the Senate brought the bill into the sunshine for actual discussion, legitimate tweaking and, presumably, an eventual floor vote. The committee plans another hearing later this month.

The House? It indulged Wednesday morning in the kind of sneak attack on government accountability that ought to send all of us pouring into the voting booths this November to throw the bums out.

The plan he unveiled is a cynical formula for ensuring that the politicians in the legislative majority have full control of the redistricting process, stripping the governor's veto over the congressional map and removing the Supreme Court's pick on the present mapmaking commission.

The PA GOPs answer to the current dilemma is to completely remove any checks on their authority – i.e., removing the right of the executive and the legislative to weigh in.

The Republicans clearly appear guilty of procedurally locking this up like a bunch of dickholes.

The article accuses them of being dickholes in the face of overwhelming bipartisan support.

It’s a highly unusual circumstance for a bill with overwhelming bipartisan support to get procedurally killed and replaced with the opposite. I see it as more probable overwhelming bipartisan support doesn’t mean what the author thinks it means.

Without doing research into PA state politics how I rate what the GOP is attempting to do will hinge on that adjective.

If the adjective is accurate, I’m outraged, because the will of the people is being usurped.

If the reality is the bill wouldn’t pass in a straight floor vote, which I get the impression may be the case, what the **** am I supposed to do? The voters in your state are nobs, which means they’re represented by nobs. Join the club.

Now, actions going back to President Bill Clinton’s administration could be in play under the procedure GOP lawmakers are undertaking, forcing numerous agencies to reconsider how they roll out new regulations.

CRA resolutions are exempt from the filibuster but can be vetoed, so they only work when one party controls both chambers of Congress and the White House. Until now, that, plus the short deadline, has meant it only gets used at presidential transitions, against recently issued rules. If this interpretation becomes the norm it would allow "claw-backs" of rules from decades ago.

CRA resolutions are exempt from the filibuster but can be vetoed, so they only work when one party controls both chambers of Congress and the White House. Until now, that, plus the short deadline, has meant it only gets used at presidential transitions, against recently issued rules. If this interpretation becomes the norm it would allow "claw-backs" of rules from decades ago.

This is a masterfully executed troll. It almost got me. I wouldn’t have caught on if I hadn’t thought about it for hours and hours.

It’s actually right there in the article. Federal agencies are run by Trump appointees. They can “claw-back” whatever rule they want. This just lets senators take the credit.

Without doing research into PA state politics how I rate what the GOP is attempting to do will hinge on that adjective.

The point isn't the chances of this passing. The point is they are so brazen as to not care that they're broadcasting how they want to rig the system.

Everything is a series of steps, and that's where we're at now. How long until the GOP openly admits that they think the majority party deserves to rig the vote?

2012 was the first watershed, when, in PA no less, Mike Turzai openly bragged that voter ID was going affect the outcome of the Presidential election in the state. That got killed by the courts. Six years later, the courts kill gerrymandering in PA and now they've decided that they no longer will put up with the courts.

Norms are dissolving and efforts to maintain their power and manipulate the system coming out in the open. The moves I try to log in this thread are 'death threats' to democracy. I think the idea that they only rate if the person making the threat really has a chance to kill you is absurd. Particularly in a post Trump world.

CRA resolutions are exempt from the filibuster but can be vetoed, so they only work when one party controls both chambers of Congress and the White House. Until now, that, plus the short deadline, has meant it only gets used at presidential transitions, against recently issued rules. If this interpretation becomes the norm it would allow "claw-backs" of rules from decades ago.

Its not going to happen because they know both sides can abuse this.

FYI this thread is more about attempts to control and rig elections and suppress the voice of the people, rather than legislative trickery.

Edit: Toomey surviving 2016 has been one of the other disappointments. He was for shady shit during the tax 'reform' stuff too.

The point isn't the chances of this passing. The point is they are so brazen as to not care that they're broadcasting how they want to rig the system.

Everything is a series of steps, and that's where we're at now. How long until the GOP openly admits that they think the majority party deserves to rig the vote?

2012 was the first watershed, when, in PA no less, Mike Turzai openly bragged that voter ID was going affect the outcome of the Presidential election in the state. That got killed by the courts. Six years later, the courts kill gerrymandering in PA and now they've decided that they no longer will put up with the courts.

Norms are dissolving and efforts to maintain their power and manipulate the system coming out in the open. The moves I try to log in this thread are 'death threats' to democracy. I think the idea that they only rate if the person making the threat really has a chance to kill you is absurd. Particularly in a post Trump world.

My last post did nothing but widen the communication gap even more, so I’m going to go back to the beginning and address the elephant in the room.

Somewhere along the line I got put on the list where the assumption is I argue in bad faith to the extent I’m deserving of abuse.

All this is doing is hurting me. If I’m so irredeemably shitty this is warranted, then by all means carry on. If not, I ask for a more constructive approach.

Ronald Reagan was a popular president, winning the national vote easily. And won reelection easily. George Bush (Sr) arguably won on his coattails. But since then, Republican candidates have won the popular vote only once: the reelection of George Bush (Jr) in 2004. But as Al Gore won the vote in 2000, George would not have been up for reelection except for gaming the EC.

So if we exclude George Bush (Jr)'s reelection, Republicans have not won the national vote since 1988. 30 years of losing the vote.

Perhaps their support for gerrymandering is a survival tactic. Along with voting registration barriers, supporting major corporate donors, and voting as a block. Even on matters the public feels strongly against.

Obviously, this only covers POTUS elections. But the pattern turned out rather strong. If gerrymandering and registration tricks were removed from all states, would the Republicans win even 25% of offices? How badly do they need the tricks to remain relevant? Congressional election sifting might give a different answer, if anyone wants to dig. Too much data for my free time, unfortunately.

Perhaps their support for gerrymandering is a survival tactic. Along with voting registration barriers, supporting major corporate donors, and voting as a block. Even on matters the public feels strongly against.

Gerrymandering is politics as usual. Voter suppression is the survival tactic. Their hostile attitude towards immigration is partially suspect as well.

Originally Posted by reader50

Obviously, this only covers POTUS elections. But the pattern turned out rather strong. If gerrymandering and registration tricks were removed from all states, would the Republicans win even 25% of offices? How badly do they need the tricks to remain relevant? Congressional election sifting might give a different answer, if anyone wants to dig. Too much data for my free time, unfortunately.

The exception I'd point out is the GOP absolutely murdered Democrats for governorships during the Obama admin. Now whether that is cause>effect or legitimate preference is debatable. But on a state level, GOP is doing very, very well. Federally it's a shit show.

The exception I'd point out is the GOP absolutely murdered Democrats for governorships during the Obama admin. Now whether that is cause>effect or legitimate preference is debatable. But on a state level, GOP is doing very, very well. Federally it's a shit show.

I think you are right about governors, but if you look at e. g. (federal) senators, the Democrats were able to get some elected in rather red states. But gerrymandering does play a role when it comes to state legislatures. Honestly, I don't think this will change unless the US switches to proportional representation — which will not happen any time soon.

I'd give them credit for being devious, but it's so clever I have to think this came from some outside party.

The amendments are contained in one bill but would appear as two separate questions on the ballot, Senate officials said. One would ask whether a commission should be established to draw political maps, and the other would ask whether districts should be set up for judicial elections.

Well the good news is voters can't accidentally enable it this November.